Card Counting in Australia

Introduction | Brief Overview | Card Counting Legalities (Precedents) | Counter Measures | Profit Analysis | Sensitivity Analysis (%profit) | Conclusion | Bibliography | Blackjack Simulation- Experiment- December 1990 | Experiment Conclusion |

Two entirely separate methods of calculation have provided a very similar result for the value of the house edge at the game of Blackjack where all players use basic strategy.

The simulation method (Monte Carlo method), whilst laborious and subject to statistical variance, was conducted for such a large number of trials as to negate this factor. In all nearly half a billion hands were played providing a value for the house edge of 0.604%. This is the long term expectation at the game of Blackjack given Adelaide Casino rules should all players play perfect basic strategy as per the strategy table shown in the appendix. It would be anticipated however, that less than 10% of all players at the Adelaide Casino would play perfect basic strategy. Studies conducted by Mr Brian Feetham, former Systems Analyst, concluded that the house edge for the average C.G.A. player was close to 2.0% due to the various misplays made by Blackjack players. The basic strategy edge is therefore important only from the perspective of a minimum return, given an optimal no memory strategy.

For completeness let us also compare the value derived by computer simulation with professor E.O. Tuck’s value for a basic strategy house edge. Professor Tuck of the Adelaide University Applied Mathematics Department in his 1986 NAG’s paper, “Blackjack – is there anything more to be said?”, calculates an edge of 0.785% for Adelaide Casino rules. Whilst this figure may at first appear to differ substantially from the value derived by the experiment detailed, it is in fact very similar when Professor Tuck’s assumptions are examined. Firstly, Tuck’s figure is the win/loss in relation to the amount originally bet, not the total amount bet. This factor increases the edge calculation for the simulation from 0.604% to 0.664%. Secondly, Professor Tuck utilised an infinite deck assumption as being appropriate for an 8 deck game. This is arguably correct, however, according to Griffin in his book “The Theory of Blackjack”, the deck advantage for an infinite deck is 0.65% as opposed to the 0.54% deck advantage for a 6 or 8 deck game.

Taking this into account would reduce Tuck’s edge calculation to approximately 0.675%. As can be seen when compared on an equivalent basis Tuck’s 0.675% edge and the simulated edge of 0.664% are indeed very close showing a variance of only 0.011%.